Delhi Court November 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Ranvir Singh Vs. Union of India and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT719; 1992RLR23
Bahri, J.(1) On 28th October, 1991, we have partly allowed the appeal. The reasons are. now being stated. (2) This appeal has been brought against judgment and decree dated February 12, 1985, of a Single Judge by which the suit brought by the plaintiff claiming Rs. 2,00.000.00 as damages with interest @ 18% per annum was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (3) At the time of the filing of the suit the plaintiff was working as Deputy General Manager (Telephones) at Pune, but while he was working as D.E.T. at Moradabad, during the year 1972-73 he was alleged to have committed certain acts of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings were taken against him. It appears that on January 28, 1975, in pursuance to the Fir lodged with the police the C.B.I, had raised the plaintiff's house and office with a view to locate file No. DET/LP-72-73 but without success. It appears that copies of certain official correspondence were seized by the C.B.L and later on two separate s...
Ramesh Dhingra Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT408
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this revision petition are that Shri Ramesh Dhingra, petitioner herein, along with others purchased property bearing No. 427, Ward I, Gali Rajan Kalan, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, from Smt. Ram Piari vide registered sale deed, dated 30.6.1991. According to the petitioner neither he nor any other co-purchaser has made any unauthorised construction in the said building but the officials of the respondent without serving any statutory notice, as required under Section 343 of the Municipal Corporation Act threatened to demolish the said building on 26.9 1991, but they were prevented by Mohalla walas, who had collected there. That action of the M.C.D. though challenged by filing a suit in the Court of the Sub-Judge seeking relief of injunction restraining the officials of the M.C.D. and their agents from demolishing or sealing the said property or from disconnecting the electricity supply thereto. (2) The Sub-Judge concerned relying upon the D.B. decisio...
Pradeep Bhargav Vs. Ram Pyari Etc.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 1991(1)DRJ(Suppl)67; ILR1992Delhi677; 1992RLR48
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (1) [ED. facts:-Pffs. & Defts. had entered into an agreement of sale of property on 2.2.87. On 8.3.89, pffs. filed suit for specific performance of the agreement. Single Judge suo moto raised the question whether such a suit was maintainable in view of Art. 300-A of the Constitution and referred the question to a larger Bench. He raised same question in three other similar suits. The D.B. after referring to the law of Specific Performance of contracts in American Jurisprudence (2nd Ed., Vol. 71) and Halsbury Laws of England (4th Ed. Vol. 44, para 401), proceeded thus :- (2) These principles of specific performance are in term codified in Chapter Ii (sections 2 to 24) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the law as enacted by Parliament. It repealed the earlier Act of 1877. Sec, 9 deals with defenses respecting suits for relief based on contract. It says 'except as otherwise provided herein, where any relief is claimed under this Chapter in respect of a contract, the person...
Saraswati Dalmia Vs. Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-26-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT191
S.C. Jain, J. (1) The facts giving rise to this petition are that Smt. Saraswati Dalmia, petitioner herein, filed an eviction petition against Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent. Control Act as amended by the Amend Act, 1988 for recovery of immediate possession of premises situated at plot No. 9 Block No. 159. 4, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. Summons under Iii Schedule of the Delhi Rent Control Act were issued and the respondent appeared and filed an application seeking leave to defend the petition Along with an affidavit of Shri Ramesh Chandra, Executive Director of the respondent company. The facts as alleged in the affidavit are that the petitioner is residing at 27, Akbar Road which is known as 9, Man Singh Road having an area of 5 acres on which a two-storeyed building has been constructed. There are 30 large size rooms in that bungalow besides servant quarters numbering about 20 and garages etc. and the petitioner has more than three rooms in her exclusive p...
East African Traders Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: (1992)(59)ELT314TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order of the Collector enhancing the value of 'Synthetic Polycarbonate' from US $ 2500 per MT CIF to US $ 3200 per MT CIF.2. The case of the appellants is that they are a partnership firm. The suppliers of the imported goods is a limited company registered in Singapore. The Managing Director of the supplier company is the brother of the partner of the appellant firm. By a telex dated 12-2-1990, the supplier offered to supply 'Synthetic Polycarbonate mix' at US $ 2700 per MT CIF Bombay. The appellants by a return telex offered to purchase at US $ 2400 per MT CIF. In reply, the supplier offered by a telex No.445 to supply "job lot quantity of 45 to 50 MT" in a single lot at the value of US $ 2500 per MT CIF. On 12-2-1990 by telex the appellants accepted the job lot offer of US $ 2500 per MT CIF. On 13-2-1990, the appellants changed the destination from Bombay to Kandla. On 31-3-1990, the goods were shipped by 3 bills of lading and goods arrived in 3 cont...
Ms. Jasvir Kaur Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(38)ECC94; 1992LC309(Delhi); ILR1992Delhi689
ORDERB. N. Kirpal, J.1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge the decision of the Customs authorities as well as the Joint Secretary to the Government of India whereby two Gold Karas weighing 110 grams, valued at Rs. 20,900 were not allowed to be re-exported.2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner arrived at the I.G.I. Airport from abroad and was carrying on her person Gold in the form of two crude Karas. She did not declare these Karas and, according to the impugned orders, she tried to go through the Green Channel and when she was intercepted at the exit gate as to whether she was carrying any Gold, she answered in the negative. Apparently the Customs authorities did recover the two Gold Karas and the same were confiscated and a penalty of Rs. 1500/- was imposed.3. An appeal was filed and it was contended that the impugned orders were contrary to the Tourist Baggage Rules. The submission was that the Karas should be allowed to be re-exported and penalty refunded. It was ...
Canara Bank Vs. M.M. Polypacking (P) Ltd.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 1992(22)DRJ130
(1) By this application plaintiff claims decree against defendants on the admissions said to be contained in the balance sheets of defendant No. 1 for the year ending 31st March 1983 and for the year ending 30th August 1984. Under the provisions of Order 12 Rule'6 Civil Procedure Code the court in its discretion which, of course, has to be exercised judicially, can pass decree on clear and unambiguous admissions made by the defendant in the pleadings or otherwise at any stage of the suit. In this case following Ii issues have been framed:- 1. Whether the plaint has been signed and verified by a duly authorised and competent person on behalf of the plaintiff OPP 2.Whether the Cash Credit, Documentary, Bills and Deferred Payment Guarantee for Purchase of Machinery A/c were separate and independent of each other If so, what is its effect OPD 3.Whether the suit is bad for disjoined of causes of action If so, what is its effect OPD 4.Whether the suit is barred by limitation OPP 5.Whether th...
Ram Kishan and anr. Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 47(1992)DLT128
V.B. Bansal, J.(1) Ram Kishan and Paras Ram have prayed for being released on bail in Fir No. 242/91, P.S. Mehrauli under Secs. 302/307/147148/34 IPC.(2) There was an incident at about 11.30 a.m. on 4/08/1991infornt of House No. 260/3, village Chhatarpur within the jurisdiction of P.S.Mehrauli. Case was registered on the statement of Hem Chand S/o Mangat Ram.(3) Briefly stated the prosecution story has been that on that day he along with his father Mangat Ram and brother Kanhayalal and Rati Ram took meals in the house and at about 11.30 a.m. he along with his brother Rati Ram came out of the house and noticed that Ukiliptus (ballies) which they had kept outside their house had rolled down. He noticed Tara Chand,Ram Singh and Raj Kumar present at their shop and an enquiry was made from them as to who had thrown the said Ballies on the road. The aforesaid persons started giving abuses and asked the complainant and his brother as to why they were not removing the same. Hem Chand made a re...
Jasvir Kaur Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: AIR1992Delhi332; 2009(241)ELT521(Del)
B.N. Kirpal, J.(1) The petitioner is seeking to challenge the decision of the Customs. authorities as well as the Joint Secretary to the Government of India whereby two Gold Karas weighing 110 grams, valued at Rs. 20,900.00 were not allowed to be re-exported. (2) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner arrived at I G.I. Airport from abroid and was carrying on her person Gold in the from of two crude Karas. She did not declare these Karas and, according to the impugned orders, she tried to go through the Green Channel and when she was intercepted at the exit gate as to whether she was carrying any Gold, she answered in the negative. Apparently the Customs authorities did recover the two Gold Karas and the same were confiscated and a penally of Rs. 1500.00 was imposed. (3) An appeal was filed and it was contended that the impugned orders were contrary to the Tourist Baggage Rules. The submission was that the Karas should be allowed to be re-exported and penalty refunded. It was ...
Ajmer Singh Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Nov-25-1991
Reported in: 46(1992)DLT306
R.L. Gupta, J.(1) The petitioner is being prosecuted under Sections 302/34 Ipc in Fir No. 168 registered in Ps Saraswati Vihar. He applies for bail. (2) I have heard arguments. The main case of the prosecution is that on 29.4.1991 at about 6.30 Pm while the deceased Sheesh Ram was dragged out of his house by the co-accused Ram Kumar, Balwan and one more person, his wife Roshni Devi tried to intervene. She found Lala, Ajmer and Nanak standing out side. Lala was armed with FARSA. At that point the petitioner and. Nanak caught hold of the deceased while Lala exhorted Ram Kumar to kill Sheesh Ram. Ram Kumar gave knife blows to the deceased. One Satbir co accused also placed a Gupti on the chest of the deceased at that time. (3) Contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is not the case of the prosecution that petitioner had also caught hold the deceased while blows with knife were given by the co-accused. At the most his role is no more serious than that of Satbir who ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›
- Last »